gordianplotfandomcom-20200214-history
REASON,
1. Nature of the Laws of Thought. When we speak of laws of thought as the universal and necessary conditions of mental action, it must not be supposed that the necessity is the same as in the material world. The laws of thought may be violated, while in the physical world a law signifies a constant mode of action. Logical necessity refers to a precept which we may violate, but not without invalidating our whole mental process. These laws of thought are the necessary conditions of valid thinking, and not necessary modes of action, like the law of gravitation. The treatment of these laws belongs properly to Logic, but they must be kept in mind by the rhetorician. A full discussion of them will be found in most works on Logic. Only a few practical suggestions are given here. 2. Rhetorical tree of the Laws of Thought. The speaker or writer must address the mind in accordance with these laws, or encounter opposition to his ideas. He may, indeed, succeed in imposing falla¬cies upon the unthinking, but even the most ignorant possess an intelligence which cannot be wholly disre¬garded. Confidence in the authority of another may insure the reception of paradoxical statements to some extent, but the mind is so constituted that it instinct¬ively rejects whatever is manifestly inconsistent with its own laws. Fallacies are not open violations of the laws of thought, but subtle evasions of them, which the intelligence does not detect. A fallacy seems to satisfy the conditions of valid thinking without really doing so. Since the rhetorician is Subject to the laws of ethics, not as a rhetorician, but as a moral being, he has no more right to use an intentional fallacy than to employ any other kind of deception. The true rhe¬torical procedure is to address the understanding in such a manner as to satisfy the requirements of its laws and show a marked respect for its authority. 3. Direct.Addrese to the Reason. Reason differs from some other faculties of the mind in admitting of direct appeal. Men naturally oppose any avowed attempt on the part of a writer or speaker to dictate to the feelings, but readily accord to him the privilege of assisting them in the operations of reason. Truth is often so many-sided and so diffi¬cult of. apprehension, that aid in reaching correct judgments is not thought to imply inferiority. It is, therefore, no offense if we announce a proposition to be proved, and invite candid criticism of the argu¬ments adduced. It rather gives evidence of fairness in presenting our ideas, and is a compliment to the persons addressed, as if a recognition that they possess a test of truth. 4. General Confidence in Reason. If not universally recognized as an absolute stand¬ard of truth, reason is nevertheless the highest tribu¬nal to which men may appeal in the affairs of life. It is generally confessed to be correct in its decisions unless deceived by fallacies. However much one may doubt the infallibility of others, most men confide in their own acuteness in detecting sophistry. They are far more distrustful of their feelings, even when these are known to be such as the occasion demands, or even to fall far short of their proper intensity. Even experience is sometimes questioned when it conflicts with rational consistency. Truth is instinctively felt to be a harmony between our conceptions and reali¬ties, and consistency is demanded in facts as well as in thought. A plausible theory is often more readily received than an anomalous fact. 5. Permanence of Fallacious Notions., It is a fact of great importance to the rhetorician that the strongest emotions are generally of brief dura¬tion, while a fallacy may remain undetected long after it begins to deceive the mind. The feelings change with the surroundings, while reason remains the same. Hence a determination based on a temporary emotion may be lost when the emotion has subsided and the mind views the facts in a different aspect. But a con¬viction founded on a train of reasoning having once been reached, our confidence in our conclusion often prevents a re-examination of the facts. Even if we revise our former reasoning, a fallacy which once de¬ceived may continue to elude us. Emotion dominates over the mind less and less with the progress of time, while a fallacy, if not detected, becomes more and more influential. By being repeatedli assumed as true, a false conclusion at last acquires the force of an undisputed truth, and often propagates itself by being used as a premise in other reasoning. 6. Importance of the Laws of Thought. Since the mind is governed by certain laws of thought in which men confide as the highest authority, every presentation of ideas to the mind must recognise the existence of these laws. Nor is it safe to trifle with them, to say nothing of the moral requirements of the case. They are the natural safeguards of the mind, preserving it from delusion and folly. They are the only defense of the unsophisticated against the trickery of the demagogue and the charlatan. However they may be perverted, these laws are the son tinels of the mind, demanding the passport of every new idea which claims admission, and, although they may be deceived by sophistry, and enticed from duty by interest, they generally guard the portals of Truth's temple with vigilance and fidelity.